[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2013, 12:02 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 10:58 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 09:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  But doesn't it bother you that you believe whacked-out, crazy shit?

It makes me distrust your thinking.

Why would it make you distrust my thinking?

There's whack-out and crazy shit happening all over the universe, and much of it we can't explain. I'm not worried about my beliefs conflicting with anyone's worldview or concept of the universe. The only reason your trust of my thinking might at all be relevant to my participation here is if it causes you to object to some argument I might produce, and if your objection comes down to nothing more than "you believe crazy shit," then the problem obviously does not lie with my argument.

I agree with you that Ralph Ellis is full of shit. Your arguments on this subject are good.

However, LDS theology is demonstrably made-up baloney, so if you actually believe it, you are not thinking clearly in at least that part of your world view.

Let's save this for another thread.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-06-2013, 12:54 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 11:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But there's the rub. Religous belief, in an intelligent person of no apparent cognitive deficiencies, is symptomatic of a rather uncritical and naive position.

Only if one presupposes that the supernatural does not exist.

(24-06-2013 11:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I can almost agree fully with that. In my field, physics, there are many believers in all sorts of faiths who do great science regardless. I think it may be slightly harder to dissociate, when attempting a serious investigation into the history of events which themselves form the basis for many of those faiths. Trying to do so is admirable.

Mr Ellis has tried to argue against you instead of your positions. We can all see that, and we can all see that it's fallacious and dishonest.

I appreciate your support on that end. I came here precisely because someone followed a link to my blog that he posted here, and I wanted to make sure I had the chance to correct any misapprehensions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 01:01 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 12:54 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 11:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But there's the rub. Religous belief, in an intelligent person of no apparent cognitive deficiencies, is symptomatic of a rather uncritical and naive position.

Only if one presupposes that the supernatural does not exist.

(24-06-2013 11:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I can almost agree fully with that. In my field, physics, there are many believers in all sorts of faiths who do great science regardless. I think it may be slightly harder to dissociate, when attempting a serious investigation into the history of events which themselves form the basis for many of those faiths. Trying to do so is admirable.

Mr Ellis has tried to argue against you instead of your positions. We can all see that, and we can all see that it's fallacious and dishonest.

I appreciate your support on that end. I came here precisely because someone followed a link to my blog that he posted here, and I wanted to make sure I had the chance to correct any misapprehensions.

I think you have more than shown his errors and lack of expertise and of everything I have read here I have only a very few minor quibbles with your position (the other thread raises the main one) and commend you for rather thoroughly dismantling the entire argument. I hope you stick around to contribute to this community as expertise is always appreciated.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 01:01 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 12:54 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 11:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But there's the rub. Religous belief, in an intelligent person of no apparent cognitive deficiencies, is symptomatic of a rather uncritical and naive position.

Only if one presupposes that the supernatural does not exist.

Since there is no evidence for the supernatural, it is not presupposition to discount its existence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-06-2013, 01:16 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Since there is no evidence for the supernatural, it is not presupposition to discount its existence.

Evidence and proof are two different things, and one is much more subjective than the other. At the same time, I disagree that it falls within the purview of the scientific method to judge the existence of an entity that is thought to exist outside that very purview.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 01:26 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 01:16 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Since there is no evidence for the supernatural, it is not presupposition to discount its existence.

Evidence and proof are two different things, and one is much more subjective than the other. At the same time, I disagree that it falls within the purview of the scientific method to judge the existence of an entity that is thought to exist outside that very purview.

There is no evidence that there is an 'outside'.

And I have not used the word 'proof'. There is no evidence of pink unicorns - shall we suppose they might exist?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-06-2013, 01:27 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 01:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 01:16 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Evidence and proof are two different things, and one is much more subjective than the other. At the same time, I disagree that it falls within the purview of the scientific method to judge the existence of an entity that is thought to exist outside that very purview.

There is no evidence that there is an 'outside'.

And I have not used the word 'proof'. There is no evidence of pink unicorns - shall we suppose they might exist?

Srsly he's gonna let us go with the teacup debate? I get the feeling he doesn't deal with many atheists.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 01:34 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 12:54 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Only if one presupposes that the supernatural does not exist.

I don't presuppose that the supernatural does not exist - I merely see no evidence for any situation in which it does. Inconsistencies or unknowns have been explained by recourse to the supernatural since time immemorial, and those explanations have always been superseded by purely natural enquiry. By not presupposing its nonexistence, one is essentially acknowledging that it is an explanation of some or all events or phenomena. This is not rational - it is fundamentally an unprovable assertion.

There is nothing in human experience so far that has not been amenable to natural explanation. Supposing, despite that, that there may yet be something that isn't, is not a rational conclusion. To accept the supernatural is to do so despite all evidence and observation. That's not a rational act. The supernatural one is left with, then, is one which contrives to create the appearance of purely natural phenomena - making it irrelevant.

I don't understand why someone (not referring specifically to you here) can be strictly rigourous in one sphere and yet acknowledge themselves to be utterly irrational in another.

(24-06-2013 12:54 PM)maklelan Wrote:  I appreciate your support on that end. I came here precisely because someone followed a link to my blog that he posted here, and I wanted to make sure I had the chance to correct any misapprehensions.

I'm glad you're here for that! I've found your posts very informative (and your patience with our dear Mr Ellis here commendable).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
24-06-2013, 03:46 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 10:06 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Dan came here as a scholar to rebut Ralph, not as a Mormon to preach the gospel. Maybe you cats could ease off the throttle. Tongue

Yup. I'm definitely not eager to go all "you're bonkers" and start slinging mud. Just was curious...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 11:03 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I'm not here to be an apologist for Mormonism

I'm not asking you to be. I'm just interested in why you still believe it - not from a "you shouldn't believe this" point of view but more... how does your brain work... Thanks for the answers, I'll leave off the questions now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: